88

MEDICINE AND THE LAWThe Drowsy Motorist

IN R. r. Butterworth the Court of Criminal Appealhad an interesting little problem of the effect of drowsinessupon criminal responsibility. Mr. Arthur Butterworth,after working at an aircraft factory all night, was drivinghimself home in his car when (as the Bury magistratesfound) he was overcome by sleep or drowsiness. Thecar ran into a column of 36 American soldiers marchingin the same direction ; 16 of them were injured. Thetwo usual charges against a motorist under the RoadTraffic Act are those under section 11 (driving to thepublic danger) and section 12 (driving without due careand attention and without reasonable considerationfor other persons using the road). Mr. Butterworth,when charged under both sections, pleaded that sleepor drowsiness had made him no longer conscious of, orresponsible for, his actions. The justices held that, ifhe was temporarily unconscious, he could not be guiltyof any offence; they therefore dismissed the charges.On appeal by the police, however, the Court of CriminalAppeal have sent the case back to the justices with adirection to find the case proved.

There are, of course, some offences (mostly understatute or by-law) which involve no proof of guilty’intention or, blameworthy mind. If a man’s chimneyis on fire, he may be fined whatever the state of hisintention or knowledge. In a well-known case in 1880(R. v. Bishop), where a woman was charged with con-travening the Lunacy Act by receiving two or morelunatics into her house without a licence for the purpose,the jury found that the patients were lunatics but thatthe defendant honestly believed that they were not.She was, however, convicted of breaking the statutewhich had not accompanied its prohibition with anyreference to guilty mind. In Mr. Butterworth’s caseMr. Justice Humphreys conceded that a motorist whothrough no fault of his own becomes unconscious atthe wheel (e.g., through illness or through being struckby a stone) ought not to be liable at the criminal law.But a man who allows himself to drive while asleep isat least guilty of the offence of driving without due careand attention because his duty is -to keep awake. If amotorist feels drowsiness overtaking,him, he ought tostop and wait till he shakes it off and is wide awake. Mr.Butterworth must have known that he was getting drowsy.The decision seems almost parallel to those where the.

defendant has allowed himself to be overcome by drink.Sir Edward Coke described such a man as voluntarius<%6e)MOM. But the responsibility of a man who hasdeliberately let his reason be clouded by alcohol is

nevertheless not to be confused with that of a man whois insane. In R. v. Beard Mr. Justice Bailhache dealtwith charges of rape and murder alleged to have beencommitted by a man who pleaded that he was drunkat the time. The judge asked the jury to say whetherBeard knew that he was doing wrong. When the casewas reviewed in the House of Lords in 1920 (DPP v.Beard), Lord Chancellor Birkenhead said " the defencewhich is founded upon insanity is one, thing, the defencewhich is founded upon drunkenness is another; therelevant considerations are not identical." The trialjudge had been wrong in applying the test of insanity toa case of drunkenness which did not amount to insanity.Drunkenness in Beard’s’ case " could be no defenceunless it could be established that Beard at the timeof committing the rape was so drunk that he was in-capable of forming the intention to commit it-whichwas not in fact, and manifestly, having regard to theevidence, could not be, contended."The lesson of the Butterworth case is that a man who

is so sleepy that he is not fit to drive must not drive hiscar. The same would be true of a man who knew himselfto be ill or subject to the influence of a drug. The caseof the sleep-walker who commits what might appear tobe a crime-the act of Franklin Blake, for example, inWilkie Collins’s The Moonstone&mdash;will present no difficultyif ever it comes -before the courts.

Motorist and InsulinAs a pendant to the case of the drowsy motorist we

may note some recent proceedings at Bournemouthquarter sessions where Mr. H. W. Watkins appealed from

a conviction for driving while under the influence of adrug, the drug being -insulin. The appellant collidedwith an American Red Cross van last March. A policesergeant gave evidence that when he arrived on the sceneof the accident, Mr. Watkins was incapable of under-standing what was said to him and had no control of hisbodily movements. A medical witness said that at thepolice-station. Mr. Watkins was unconscious and wassuffering from an overdose of insulin. The magistratesfined him 22 and disqualified him from driving for 12months. On his appeal to quarter sessions, his counselseems to have contended that insulin was not a " drug "within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act ; it was nota narcotic or hypnotic drug. If, however, insulin was adrug within the meaning of the Act, then counselcontended that Mr. Watkins was not under the influenceof the drug because his condition of coma was due todeficiency of food after a dose of insulin and was not dueto the insulin itself.The recorder had no doubt that insulin was a drug for

the purposes of the Road Traffic Act, or that Mr. Watkinswas under its influence at the time of the accident. But,while not interfering with the magistrates’ conviction,he decided to inflict no sentence ; he thought there wasno reason to deprive Mr. Watkins of his licence.Some years ago a diabetic patient successfully pleaded

that he was under the influence of insulin on an occasionwhen he was alleged to have been driving while underthe influence of alcohol. The Bournemouth case seemsto be the first in which anyone has been charged withdriving while under the influence of insulin. It obviouslymakes little difference to a pedestrian whether the driverwho injures him was under the influence of alcohol,opium, or insulin. Diabetic patients should be warnednot to drive in conditions which make them a danger toother persons using the road.

UNRRA’S UNDERTAKINGS

THE European regional office of UNRRA has just issuedthe first number of’ Unrra Review of the Month, datedJune. This contains the following account of thepresent situation :

Northern and Western European Countries.-As the govern-ments of these countries are in a position to pay for their ownrelief supplies, UNRRA is not authorised to provide them withrelief out of its own resources. There are, however, smallUNRRA liaison missions operating in France, Belgium,Luxemburg, and Norway, and a similar mission will shortlybe leaving for the Netherlands. Denmark, unlike the coun-tries so far mentioned, was not a signatory of the UNRRAagreement, owing to the severance of communications with thegovernment; but, like them, it is in a position to pay for anysupplies it may need.Balkan and Eastern European Countries.&mdash;Greece, Yugo-

slavia, and Czechoslovakia requested UNRRA’s assistance, andare receiving UNRRA supplies without payment. UNRRAsigned agreements with the governments of these three coun-tries to provide relief supplies and services after the period ofmilitary responsibility. In the case of Greece and Yugoslavia,this period is now over, and in these two countries UNRRA is,administering relief programmes, through its missions, on itsown responsibility. In the case of Czechoslovakia, UNRRA re-lief supplies are being sent, and a mission has recently arrivedin that country. No UNRRA agreement has yet been signedwith Poland, but both the provisional government of thePolish Republic and the Polish government in London askedfor assistance ; UNRRA supplies are being sent, and a missionis ready to leave for the country when the situation permits.Albania is not a member of UNRRA, but will be eligible for help,after the military period, as an occupied and liberatedcountry.Ex-Enemy Countries.&mdash;A limited relief programme in Italy,

authorised by the council of UNRRA last September, is in

operation under an agreement signed with the Italian govern-ment in March. An UNRRA mission is in the country helpingto administer specific categories of relief. No other ex-enemycountry is at present receiving UNRRA assistance.

Gene2-al Operations.&mdash;UNRRA has been assisting SHAEF withdisplaced-persons operations during the .military period inGermany, and is, in addition, cooperating with the countriesin which it is represented on problems of foreigners displacedin those countries. The repatriation has begun of war refugees